European Journal of Information Systems

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjis20

Building a complementary agenda for business

process management and digital innovation

Jan Mendling, Brian T. Pentland & Jan Recker

To cite this article: Jan Mendling, Brian T. Pentland & Jan Recker (2020) Building a
complementary agenda for business process management and digital innovation, European
Journal of Information Systems, 29:3, 208-219, DOI: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1755207

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1755207

Published online: 19 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11473

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 60 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjis20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
2020, VOL. 29, NO. 3, 208–219
https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1755207

GUEST EDITORIAL

Building a complementary agenda for business process management and

digital innovation
a b c
Jan Mendling , Brian T. Pentland and Jan Recker
a
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Information Systems and Operations, Vienna, Austria; bAccounting and Information Systems, Michigan State
University, East Lansing United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; cInformation Systems and Systems Development,
University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The world is blazing with change and digital innovation is fuelling the fire. Process management Received 9 March 2020
can help channel the heat into useful work. Unfortunately, research on digital innovation and Accepted 9 April 2020
process management has been conducted by separate communities operating under orthogonal KEYWORDS
assumptions. We argue that a synthesis of assumptions is required to bring these streams of Business process
research together. We offer suggestions for how these assumptions can be updated to facilitate management; digital
a convergent conversation between the two research streams. We also suggest ways that innovation; organisational
methodologies from each stream could benefit the other. Together with the three exemplar routines; process-aware
empirical studies included in the special issue on business process management and digital information systems; theory
innovation, we develop a broader foundation for reinventing research on business process
management in a world ablaze with digital innovation.

1. Introduction rejuvenate, to reconfigure, to reframe, and to challenge

We live in a digital world. From toothbrushes, thermo- the way we see and understand the world and act within
stats, and telephones to cars, buildings and airplanes, the it (Avital & Te’Eni, 2009). In other words, digital inno-
objects we use at work and in everyday life are augmen- vation is the story about how we change what we do
ted with digital capabilities that infuse their substance because of the digital technologies emerging around us.
and meaning (Baskerville et al., 2020). As Floridi (2012) To understand change, we need to understand pro-
put it, our physical world and the objects in it are being cess, and vice versa (Langley & Tsoukas, 2017).
“enveloped” by a digital layer building on pervasive and Offerings like Uber do not change the fact that we
accessible digital infrastructure of computers, broadband move from A to B; they change the process of finding,
networks and mobile devices (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, reserving, and paying for a ride. We still watch TV at
2014; Fichman et al., 2014). Digital platform businesses home, but the process of choosing what show to watch
dominate our economy (Tiwana, 2015). Innovative digi- and when to watch changes with digital platforms such
tal devices feature in the experiences of more and more as Netflix, Hulu and others. These processual changes
people (Yoo, 2010) through the proliferation of smart, continue to occur even in domains that are already
connected products, online social networks, and wear- digitised. For example, the process of transferring
able devices (e.g., Benbunan-Fich, 2019; Beverungen money is fundamentally different on a blockchain sys-
et al., 2019; Gerlach & Centefelli, 2020; Marchant & tem than the process of transferring money on
O’Donohoe, 2019). Digital devices now outnumber a conventional digital network, such as SWIFT.
humans as information processors. At the present time, These examples begin to suggest that the estab-
over 20 billion devices are connected feeding off over lished terminology of digital innovation, such as gen-
more than 50 billion sensors that track, monitor, or feed erativity and recombination, is not only about digital
data to those objects (Zhang, 2016). Digital devices are technology per se (technological objects, devices and
everywhere and they seem to be changing everything. artefacts). Digital innovation is also the story of means
What is often overlooked in this story is that digital for changing and facilitating new pathways of action
innovation is not only about the objects (a.k.a., infra- (Arthur, 2009; Garud et al., 2010; Hargadon, 2006).
structure, platforms, devices or other artefacts) – it is Creating new process pathways can have dramatic side
also about the processes they facilitate. Digital innova- effects. For example, the emergence of social media
tion may take the form of new technology but the key to made our ability to connect with family and friends
its impact is that it unleashes generative capacity (Tilson faster, better and cheaper, but it has also fundamen-
et al., 2010): digital innovation yields ability to tally changed the political process. Heads of nations

CONTACT Jan Recker [email protected]

Author order seems alphabetical, but was actually determined by comparing hair length, thickness and volume. The exact algorithm is confidential.
© Operational Research Society 2020.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 209

now make major policy announcements via Twitter. increasing attention to robotic process automation
Micro-targeting of political advertisements made it (Lacity & Wilcocks, 2017; Mendling et al., 2018a) are
possible to create “alternative facts” in political dis- just two examples out of many.
course. These kinds of changes go beyond the substi-
tution of one tool for another in the pursuit of greater
speed, lower cost or higher quality. Digital innovations
2. Must the literatures on digital innovation
can open up whole new arenas of activity.
and BPM come together?
Since digital innovation transforms process, one
might wonder whether these transformations can or Intuitively, BPM and digital innovation may appear as
need to be managed. Generative capacity is open- the opposite ends of the performance spectrum ran-
ended, creative, and innovative but it is also ambiguous, ging from operational efficiency to generative capacity
divergent and unknown (Avital & Te’Eni, 2009). It is easy (Avital & Te’Eni, 2009). But history also shows they
to imagine that in some settings, generativity is counter- have natural synergy. After all, digital innovation has
productive and operational efficiency critical (e.g., in made current practices in BPM possible just as much
mission-safety systems, in controlling manufacturing as digital innovation is changing the way how we
systems, or in handling a pandemic). Moreover, digital manage processes, both in business and private set-
innovation creates opportunities for deviation, but does tings. However, for a variety of reasons, the research
it also create opportunities for optimisation? Does it literature in each area has gravitated towards divergent
create opportunities to rethink, redesign or repurpose phenomena, assumptions, settings and methods.
processes? In short, could digital innovation benefit Table 1 provides an overview of some of the main
from business process management (BPM), perhaps the differences between the literature in each area.
most prominent management practice to improve opera- One difference lies in the choice of phenomenon.
tional efficiency (Benner & Tushman, 2003)? BPM research looks at how processes are designed as
Before we can contemplate answers to these questions, sequences of activities. Digital innovation research
we need to look at the opposite question: does BPM looks at how processes are unfolding, with an eye on
benefit from digital innovation? Isn’t there already emergent changes in technology and organising.
a blend of operational efficiency and generative capacity BPM research focuses on analytical and compu-
in contemporary business process management technol- tational approaches to generate design artefacts
ogy and practice? BPM has always combined knowledge such as frameworks, methods or technology that
from information technology and management science to support the execution and management of processes
create methods, techniques, and tools to support the in organisations. In this way, BPM largely follows
design, enactment, management, and analysis of opera- prescriptive research objectives that relate to the
tional business processes (Dumas et al., 2018; van der question how a process can be improved. Over
Aalst, 2013; Vom Brocke & Rosemann, 2015). One tradi- decades, this focus has led to the development of
tional focus of BPM research has always been the role of enormous strengths in the design of artefacts and
digital technology in enacting, managing and innovating analytical and computational techniques. Digital
business processes. This focus has led to the rise of work- innovation research, by contrast, is largely explana-
flow management systems, BPM suites, process mining tory and empirically descriptive, trying to under-
technology, robotic process automation and other key stand how processes come into being and how
technological innovations. they change, both within and across organisations.
Indeed, the same advances in software and hard- Its objective is analysis and explanation, through
ware that have given rise to digital innovation (Yoo, theory development and validation. As such, it
2010; Yoo et al., 2012, 2010) have also drastically brings to bear considerable expertise in inductive
expanded the spectrum of technologies relevant for and deductive theory development, phenomenolo-
BPM. Alongside classical process-centric technologi- gical and empirical research in context.
cal innovations such as enterprise systems or workflow Through these choices in phenomena, foci, and objec-
management systems, new digital technologies such as tives, different methodological strengths emerged in each
mobile and distributed computing, social media, digi- stream of literature as well as diverging assumptions. First,
tal platforms, data analytics, artificial intelligence, dis- assumptions regarding design and solution space are dif-
tributed ledger technology, cloud computing, and so ferent. BPM is essentially about separating problem and
forth have become increasingly important to the man- solution space (e.g., as-is modelling and to-be modelling
agement of business processes (Hull & Motahari- are two discrete stages). But in digital innovation, problem
Nezhad, 2016; Mendling et al., 2018b; Schulte et al., and solution space emerge and co-evolve (Von Hippel &
2015; Swenson, 2012). The currently debated potential von Krogh, 2016) – both are constantly in flux, we can
of implementations such as Blockchain for governing never really “fix” one of them.
financial and regulatory processes in a decentralised Second, assumptions regarding design versus emer-
fashion (Beck et al., 2018; Rieger et al., 2019) or the gence are different. The classical BPM approach
210 EDITORIAL

Table 1. Differences in the research literatures on BPM and digital innovation.

Aspect BPM Digital Innovation
Phenomenon Process as designed: temporal and logical sequences of Process as unfolding: emergent changes in technology and
activities organising
Dominant research Analytical, computational Explanatory, empirical
approaches
Setting Within organisations Both within and beyond organisations
Objective Largely prescriptive: what can be improved? Largely descriptive: what is going on?
Strengths Design, artefacts, computational techniques Theory, contextualised and phenomenological insights
Key assumptions (1) Problems and solutions are separate and disjoint. (1) Problems and solutions emerge and co-evolve together.
(2) Management is driven from the top through design. (2) Generativity arises in the small, from the bottom up.
(3) BPM is rendered in discrete lifecycle stages. (3) Digital innovation is rendered in the “here and now”.
(4) Innovations are bounded within organisational (4) Both digital innovation and processes are unbounded.
processes.

unfolds top-down from strategic requirements, archi- Second, digital innovation blurs the boundaries
tectural design towards process implementation. between process and outcome. Products as outcomes
Digital innovation largely emerges bottom-up to of innovation processes may themselves spawn, or be
unleash generativity that arises from the small. involved in, further innovation processes (Boland
Third, assumptions regarding temporality are dif- et al., 2007; Kyriakou et al., 2017). Conversely, innova-
ferent. BPM defines a discrete stage-driven design tion processes can continuously render products fluid,
process, which in its extreme form resembles the infa- malleable and emergent (Arazy et al., 2020; Kallinikos
mous waterfall model. Digital innovation often et al., 2013), making them fit for change and innova-
unfolds in an ad-hoc and anarchistic fashion driven tion after market launch and in-use (Werder et al.,
by situational opportunities. 2020). This is neither new nor surprising.
Fourth, assumptions regarding boundedness are dif- Contemporary forms of organising, such as Agile or
ferent. Digital innovation is process innovation without DevOps (Bass et al., 2015; Cram & Newell, 2016),
bounds. BPM is bounded, for example, to organisational already cater to the scenario that products (e.g.,
containers, to help concretise, bind and therefore tame cloud services) and processes (e.g., development, ser-
the generative potential of digital innovation in order to vice delivery and change management) are deeply
offer tangible value to businesses. intertwined. There are many other examples that
The picture that emerges from this discussion of demonstrate that integrative models of innovation
each literature is one of two halves that are separate, and operation are on the rise (Puranam et al., 2014).
not joined together. It is not obvious whether BPM Digital innovations as products and processes are not
and digital innovation must come together; perhaps separate, they are coming together.
the literature rightfully portrays both topics as ortho-
gonal to each other. To explore the validity of this
speculation, we now engage in a thought experiment 2.2. BPM in isolation
that considers the pure form of each topic and litera-
BPM in isolation characterises an approach that tends
ture in isolation.
to be inward-looking and attempts to incrementally
improve (but not decisively innovate) processes.
Incremental improvement has been the historical
2.1. Digital innovation in isolation
focus of operational excellence programmes of the
Digital innovation describes new products, processes, 1970s to 1990s such as lean management, six sigma
or business models that are embodied in or enabled by or total quality management. All of these programmes
digital technology (Fichman et al., 2014). This view imposed a strong emphasis on control while providing
emphasises two points. First, digital innovation is tools for exploring solutions for given, fixed problems
inherently socio-technical, addressing both changes (Powell, 1995; Ries, 2011; Schroeder et al., 2008). The
in technological systems (such as hardware and soft- focus of these approaches has been largely on con-
ware) and social systems (such as processes, structures tinuously improving already existing business pro-
and norms) brought forward through digitalisation. cesses within their current boundaries of operation
For example, the operations facilitated by platforms (Benner & Tushman, 2003). At the centre of these
such as Uber or Task Rabbit make it hard to envision approaches is the discovery and modelling of the exist-
digital innovation without an explicit integration of ing business process (“as-is”). The ambition is to iden-
a process perspective. There are novel technical pro- tify waste and corresponding root causes, such that
cesses, but also novel social processes for all platform waste can be eliminated (i.e. unnecessary motion,
participants (e.g., think Uber drivers and Uber riders, transportation, inventory, defects, etc.) in new pro-
think different routes taking for commute, think dif- cesses (“to-be”). These techniques and views remain
ferences in planning holidays without a rental car). commonplace in BPM teaching and practice to
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 211

this day, even though some attention is given to tech- operational business processes. Likewise, we wanted
niques for innovation (Dumas et al., 2018; Vom to see how technology, techniques and theory from the
Brocke & Mendling, 2018; Vom Brocke et al., 2014). management of business processes can assist an
When BPM is restricted to searching fixed problem understanding of digital innovation processes and
spaces, it is susceptible to the costs associated with outcomes. We wanted to know whether operational
formulating what the problem space is (Von Hippel efficiency and generative capacity can be balanced, and
& von Krogh, 2016). This problem is commonplace if so, how. Furthermore, we wanted to reach out to
during “as-is” process modelling – often those two different, isolated communities and provide
a considerable time and cost investment with unclear, them with a forum where their ideas, theories and
indirect, or indeterminate benefits (Indulska, Green insights could meet and transcend the boundaries of
et al., 2009; Indulska, Recker et al., 2009). Moreover, their respective literature streams.
by limiting BPM to existing problems, managers In response to our call we received twenty-two
forego opportunities for solutions that involve proac- submissions. After a rigorous review process with
tive approaches, such as searching and implementing multiple rounds of revisions, we selected three studies
solutions before problem arises (Benner & Tushman, for inclusion in this special issue. These papers serve as
2003; Poll et al., 2018). If BPM is purely reactive, exemplars of the opportunities that arise when we
managers would need to wait for digital innovations consider BPM and digital innovation together, rather
to impact existing business processes and manifest than separately. All three have in common that they
problems that require “fixing”. focus on emergent digital technologies (such as new
In essence, without the outward-looking ambition digital infrastructure, new digital product/service
inherent in digital innovation, BPM largely equates offerings, or new data analytics) and explore how
with a programme of fixing problems and eliminating these innovations challenge assumptions inherent in
waste. Such a programme introduces novelty to the traditional approaches to BPM. All three establish
business process only to a limited extent as the over- linkages between the literatures of BPM (process mod-
arching process logic is not questioned. Moreover, the elling, process management, process innovation) and
output of any process remains largely unchanged. digital innovation (digital infrastructure, digital trans-
Everything that makes digital innovation unique – formation, data analytics). All three make connections
capacities for programmability, malleability, and between conversations that previously existed only in
change (Kallinikos et al., 2013; Nambisan et al., 2017; isolation.
Yoo et al., 2012, 2010) are lost in the imposition of “Architectural Alignment of Process Innovation
stable, fixed process designs as prescribed by blue- and Digital Infrastructure in a High-Tech Hospital,”
prints for execution in the form of flow charts, written by Bygstad and Øvrelid (2020), explores the link
procedures or algorithmic workflows. Fixed designs between BPM and digital infrastructure. Using data
mean treating evolution, drift and unprompted from an in-depth case study of a Norwegian hospital,
change not as sources of generativity and evolution they identify contrary assumptions about infrastruc-
(Pentland et al., 2020a) nor as positive deviances that ture and BPM, and in turn propose a combination of
yield gains in performance (Mertens et al., 2016) but governance and architecture alignment mechanisms
rather as deviations that need to be halted (Nguyen that promotes successful process innovation. They
et al., 2014), loss of control that needs to be avoided focus on the role of lightweight technology, such as
(Ciborra, 2000), or exceptions that need to be mana- smart phones, tablets, apps, and whiteboards, in pro-
ged (Casati, 1999). cess innovation. These technologies can support rapid
process change without extensive engineering
(Schmiedel & Vom Brocke, 2015). The processes are
3. Can the literatures on digital innovation
emergent, but still need to be managed.
and business process management come
“Digital Transformation and the New Logics of
together? Three exemplars
Business Process Management,” by Baiyere et al.
Neither the literature on digital innovation nor BPM is (2020), reports on an ethnography that examines the
sufficiently comprehensive to capture the coalescence link between the introduction of new digital product
and emergence of digital innovation as enacted in, and service offerings and how these changes fit to
transpiring through, and transformative of, processes. BPM. The starting point of their work, again, is
The literatures to date have been isolated and diver- a mismatch in assumptions between BPM and digital
gent. Going forward, they must come together. transformation. Through their analysis, they propose
Our special issue was compiled with that goal in new logics that include light touch processes (process),
mind. We wanted to attract papers that provided new infrastructural flexibility (infrastructure) and mindful
theory or evidence for explaining how digital innova- actors (agency) that together coin updated, more
tion enables, constrains, shifts or otherwise upends the encompassing and flexible assumptions for how busi-
design, enactment, management, and analysis of ness processes can be managed.
212 EDITORIAL

“Examining the Interplay Between Big Data

enforcement of process compliance with identification of

It is impossible to fully anticipate how processes are integrated and reused in emerging value- Over time, process design has to balance local optimisation
Analytics and Contextual Factors in Driving Process

It is impossible to fully anticipate how well a process design will work but it is also impossible to Over time, process design has to balance new feature
Innovation Capabilities,” by Mikalef and Krogstie

Over time, process design has to balance predefined

(2020), explores how big data analytics interacts with

Over time, process management has to balance

Updated Convergent Assumption
BPM. Using survey data from 202 chief information

structure and freedom for adaptation.

officers and IT managers working in a diverse set of

innovation with immediate feedback.

businesses, they distinguish configurations that sup-
port incremental versus radical process innovation.

and global options for reuse.

They find that managerial skill, in combination with
other factors, is a core requirement for radical process

positive deviance.
innovation.
Much like many of the other submissions we
received but could not publish, these three exemplars
display a variety in focus, ideas, and research methods
(from ethnography to case study to quantitative
research). While each paper delivers important con-

It is impossible to anticipate how a process will be performed tomorrow but some continuous

creation networks but all processes will be embedded in and personalised experiences to
understanding will be required about what the process-as-performed currently looks like.
tributions on its own, we see several commonalities

It is impossible to fully specify processes beforehand but some design is necessary to lend
between them. For example, in all of these papers, we
notice a balance between process design and process
emergence; neither logic is favoured at the expense of
the other. From a research perspective, there is
a balance between prescription and description.

fully anticipate which process patterns will emerge without design.

From an outcome perspective, all studies suggest revi-
siting assumptions in either stream of literature in
Challenge to assumptions
order to relax, not necessarily replace, some traditional
beliefs. For example, the studies advocate some process
design is necessary but in a light way. All advocate
some management control; none pushes total emer-
gence without structure. All draw attention to some
aspects of agency and organising – be they managerial
skill, mindfulness, or boundary spanning resources.

4. Towards a convergent logic for business

process management and digital innovation
some extent.

The exemplars in our special issue demonstrate the

structure.
Table 2. Proposed convergent assumptions of BPM and digital innovation.

value of questioning current assumptions. Expanding

upon their work, we can begin to formulate proposi-
tions for a converging conversation (Alvesson &
small, from the bottom
Old assumption in digital

emerge and co-evolve.

Generativity arises in the

rendered in the “here

Sandberg, 2011) about BPM and digital innovation.

Problems and solutions are Problems and solutions

BPM is rendered in discrete Digital innovation is

Table 2 summarises these propositions, which we dis-

innovation

Innovations and
processes are

cuss in turn. They focus on process design because

unbounded.
and now”.

processes are at the centre of both emerging technol-

ogy (through digital innovation) and organising
up.

(through BPM) (Swanson, 2019).

Old assumption in BPM

Management is driven by

Innovations are bounded

Proposition 1: Over time, process design has to

separate and disjoint.

within organisational
design from the top.

balance new feature innovation with immediate

lifecycle stages.

feedback.
processes.

It is impossible to fully anticipate how well a process

design will work. Assumptions of classical BPM that
regard process design as finding a solution to a given
of

problem and

process-related problem have become obsolete in

Design versus
Separation of

emergence

Boundedness
assumption

Temporality
solution

a dynamic world driven by digital innovation.

However, emergence is only half the story here. Process
Type

design now at a larger scale exhibits characteristics that

 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 213

have been observed in design studies: problem under- been criticised in the 1980s (Hirschheim, 1986;
standing drives solution understanding and vice versa Winograd & Flores, 1986). Various approaches have
(Dorst & Cross, 2001), both in innovation (Von Hippel been proposed to make process execution more flex-
& von Krogh, 2016) and process dynamics (Dittrich & ible (Reichert & Dadam, 1998; Van der Aalst & Weske,
Seidl, 2018). It is neither design as problem-solving nor 2005). Much of the concepts developed in these
emergence alone, but interventional design and endo- research works have been integrated into adaptive
genous evolution that continuously trigger each other. case management systems and standards (“OMG,”
A consequence of these observations is that 2016). The essential idea of these systems is to leave
approaches for managing business processes must learn parts of the processes deliberately underspecified and
from digital innovation methodologies: In simple terms, to offer techniques to users for extending and adapting
BPM must become more agile (Bruno et al., 2011). processes during enactment. Going forward, we expect
Process design has to become both more fine-grained to see a much stronger prominence of partial, flexible
and more continuous. Fast feedback and short learning or adaptive process design or specification. Without it,
cycles are required to test out which process design there is no room for digital innovation to introduce
works best given the current business environment. malleability, blurring of boundaries and generative
Approaches that integrate concepts from AB-testing capacity for unprompted change – they all need
with BPM address some of these needs (Satyal et al., room to nest and grow.
2019). Fast implementation approaches like robotic pro-
cess automation become increasingly important (Lacity Proposition 3: Over time, process management has
& Wilcocks, 2017). These approaches are small-scale, to balance enforcement of process compliance with
fine-granular, they can be implemented in a short time- identification of positive deviance.
frame to automate tedious manual computer tasks like
data entry or copy and pasting of data between separate It is impossible to anticipate how a process will be
computer applications. Likewise, variants of DevOps performed in the future. At its core, BPM follows a line
essentially provide similar solutions of a fine-grained of thinking in stage gates for specifying and rolling out
continuous deployment to address some of these a process. The status of an IT-supported business
requirements (Bass et al., 2015). But all have in common process is expected to be fully understood by its ver-
that they impose some structure on emergence, even if sion number. In contrast, digital innovation implicitly
only lightweight (Bygstad & Øvrelid, 2020) or light-touch embraces a strong process theory that denies this kind
(Baiyere et al., 2020) form. Through constraints, innova- of clear structure as an ontological concept (Hernes,
tion will be focused and fostered. By constraining only 2017). A weak process theoretical perspective defines
minimally or temporally, the constraints will be amen- a middle ground that both structure and evolution are
able to change – the solution can change the problem. mutually defining each other (Giddens, 1984). In the
context of BPM, this means that a process design may
Proposition 2: Over time, process design has to exist as a specification, but it is uncertain how far the
balance predefined structure and freedom for specification of a process might deviate from one day
adaptation. to the next. This means that management faces an
ongoing knowledge gap about how the process really
It is impossible to fully specify processes before- works over time (Pentland et al., 2020a).
hand. Assumptions of BPM and digital innovation In the light of this uncertainty, various technologies
define the extremes of a spectrum between design capable of ongoing monitoring and analysis have been
driven top-down by management and generativity developed, such as process mining (van der Aalst,
arising in the small in a bottom-up way. Insights 2011). In essence, process mining takes transactional
from research into organisational routines describe data as an input for generating fine-grained process
a middle ground where business processes have an diagrams with information on path frequencies and
ostensive aspect (Feldman & Pentland, 2003) that workload. In contrast to interrogative techniques of
encompasses a wide range of specific process perfor- monitoring and analysis driven by business analysts,
mances. The openness of this concept suggests that process mining offers fast and detailed evidence on the
socio-technical processes cannot be fully planned or actual performance of a business process. It allows the
automated. Because actions are situated, there will discovery of hidden means-ends knowledge in an
always be some level of improvisation, error, excep- organisation and its dissemination as much as the
tion and innovation (Feldman et al., 2016), even when identification of inefficiencies and fraud (Jans et al.,
the goal is to keep the process stable. 2011).
In contrast, BPM has traditionally been supported Process mining is a prime example of a tool from
by workflow technology in a way that processes have BPM that can be used to understand and manage the
to be fully specified (Leymann & Roller, 2000). The effects of digital innovation (Grisold et al., 2020). But
deterministic nature of this technology has already its application must change. The emphasis should be
214 EDITORIAL

neither on discovery (Van der Aalst et al., 2004) of enmeshed, constantly changing and reinforcing one
some presumably stable model that explains the pro- another. Structure and boundaries blur and mingle.
cess performance, nor on conformance checking (van We already witness these developments being inte-
der Aalst, 2005) of performances against a predefined grated into new digital technology. For example, dis-
model. Both applications assume a stable model for tributed ledger technology can be seen as the first true
process performance and assume that non- class of information systems supporting fully open
conformance is problematic. Instead, applications of inter-organisational business processes (Mendling
process mining should be as dynamic as the trace data et al., 2018b). The key feature of this technology is not
it analyzes. Emphasis should be on uncovering stable its support for secure transactions with unknown or
paths and forms of patterning (Goh & Pentland, 2019) untrusted parties, but instead its capability to use
in ongoing process performances, to understand smart contracts for weaving together emerging value
which process sequences will likely influence but not chains of transactions in an unanticipated and non-pre-
determine future process performances and to identify specified way. Similarly, platform-based infrastructures
opportunities for positive deviance (Mertens et al., and ecosystems support comparable notions of open-
2016). ness and reconfiguration within and across companies
and networks of partners, customers and complemen-
Proposition 4: Over time, process design has to tors (Tilson et al., 2010; Tiwana et al., 2010). Common
balance local optimisation with global options for to well-known platforms such as Netflix, Uber and
reuse. others is the underlying design of a microservice archi-
tecture, in which numerous smaller software services
It is impossible to fully anticipate how processes are are loosely integrated and orchestrated using processes.
integrated and reused in emerging value-creation net- Netflix Conductor, Uber Cadence and Amazon AWS
works. Many BPM concepts were developed with are examples of process execution frameworks that
a focus on intra-organisational processes that operate support this weaving together, giving rise to less pre-
with largely closed information systems supporting or defined, emergent interwoven networks of processes,
enabling them. Many processes were built with the private and business, that lead to the enmeshment we
assumption that their context remains stable over have all come to experience in our digitalised reality. In
longer periods of time, which, however, is often not short, we must abstain from a restrictive interpretation
the case (Rosemann et al., 2008). But many such of the term “business” in BPM – BPM increasingly
examples exist. Process design standards have for means managing interwoven, digitally-enabled net-
a long time used schemas that explicate internal pro- works of private and business processes.
cesses and orchestrate these with “black boxed” exter-
nal parties such as suppliers or customers (Silver,
5. Joining forces through methods
2009). Classical Enterprise Resource Planning tech-
nologies such as SAP R/3 were the epitome of pre- The communities that have studied BPM and digital
designed processes running in an organisation on the innovation have so far relied on different methodolo-
basis of a closed, company-wide enterprise system. gies. Much of the research on BPM draws on formal
Process mining for a long time examined event logs and computational methods, while most of the
from a single information system from within one research on digital innovation draws on qualitative
company. BPM, by and large, looked inward. Even and quantitative empirical methods. Where others
process integration with open systems like the may see methodological disjointness, we see at least
Internet were mostly straight-jacketed with the help two opportunities for synthesis that yield untapped
of precisely defined Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) knowledge generation potential.
messages, which were then technically integrated with A first opportunity lies in the application of
XML and web service technologies (Lyytinen & a research approach dominant in one field to reach
Damsgaard, 2011). the dominant objective of the other. For example,
Digital innovation has led to processes blurring empirical methods, such as those used in digital inno-
these boundaries and transcending traditional organi- vation research, have traditionally been used to gen-
sational containers (Winter et al., 2014). It has become erate hypotheses and develop new theory. BPM
impractical to evaluate where a “business” process technologies such as process mining are not that dif-
ends and a “private” process begins (Kohlborn et al., ferent. They are essentially pattern recognition tech-
2014). Digitalised processes underlie both business niques that allow learning inductively from data.
and private experiences (Yoo, 2010), both of which Much of the data generated through digital innovation
are more emergent, more unstable, and less integrated is in the form of digital traces – evidence of activities
than traditional organisational business processes. and events that is logged and stored digitally (Freelon,
Both business and everyday processes are increasingly 2014, p. 59). In other words, digital trace data
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 215

essentially is process data (Pentland et al., 2020b). understand emergence, unfolding and coupling in digi-
Process mining could thus be used to mine digital tal processes, we need to study them in situ, with digital
traces to learn patterns about anything people do traces but also with empirical or ethnographic field
that is mediated by digital technologies (Yoo, 2010). work. As two papers in our special issue aptly illustrate
This capability is extremely important: in digital inno- (Baiyere et al., 2020; Bygstad & Øvrelid, 2020), under-
vation, value from technology comes alive within rou- standing BPM in a digital world paradoxically requires
tines (Swanson, 2019), which offers the prospect of more empirical, inductive field work. Computational
using BPM technologies, such as process mining, to and formal models alone are not sufficient. This situa-
develop theory and test hypotheses about process tion asks BPM researchers to invite colleagues from
change (Grisold et al., 2020). digital innovation and other empirically-dominated
A second opportunity arises from the increasing fields to bring their methodological capability and
need to understand context, both in BPM rigour into the community.
(Rosemann et al., 2008) and digital innovation
(Avgerou, 2019). Technology is mangled (Pickering,
2010), entangled (Orlikowski, 2007) and imbricated 6. Conclusion
(Leonardi, 2011) with its social and material context. Our objective in this introductory essay and the special
This entanglement is processual, in the sense that it issue has been to encourage convergence between
unfolds and emerges over time (Emirbayer, 1997; BPM and digital innovation research. BPM and digital
Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). The importance of context innovation belong together, like two sides of the same
has long been recognised in BPM and digital innova- coin. In the 1990s, the original version of BPM was
tion, albeit under different assumptions and with dif- inspired by digital innovations. Even then, emergent
ferent approaches. For example, BPM has developed digital technology (e.g., computer networks and data-
conceptualisations (Rosemann et al., 2008), methods bases) made it possible to “re-engineer” workflows,
(Bose & van der Aalst, 2009) and technologies often with dramatic success (Davenport, 1993;
(Günther et al., 2008) to embrace context. Digital Hammer & Champy, 1993). But in spite of
innovation research has used empirical and computa- Hammer’s (1990) classic advice (“don’t automate,
tional methodologies to study context (Gaskin et al., obliterate”), the radical approach of the early 1990s
2014; Majchrzak & Malhotra, 2016). The opportunity evolved into the more conservative, incremental top-
that arises is to embrace the methodological toolkit down approach we see in contemporary BPM (Dumas
employed in digital innovation research, such as com- et al., 2018; Smith & Fingar, 2003).
putational social science, or through configurational Now, for better or worse, digital innovation is re-
analysis as demonstrated by Mikalef and Krogstie engineering, re-inventing and in some cases obliterat-
(2020) in this special issue, within the development ing whole domains of activity without any engineering
and evaluation of BPM technology. Likewise, at all. Yet, in spite of the current divide that we see in
researchers can draw on BPM technology (such as the literature, it remains clear that BPM and digital
process mining or process analysis) to develop com- innovation are complementary fields of inquiry that
putational tools for analysing contextuality (Berente have much to learn from, and offer to, each other.
et al., 2019; Pentland et al., 2020b). Devices and routines create capabilities (Swanson,
These opportunities should not be missed by either 2019). Processes, technologies and products are inter-
side. To meaningfully analyse the ever-increasing twined. To evaluate this complementarity, scholars in
volume and breadth of digital traces, digital innova- each field will need to examine their assumptions,
tion research should turn to the analytical and com- methods and questions. To capitalise on the comple-
putational competence rigorously developed in mentarity, they need to begin opening their conversa-
decades of research on BPM. As data for process tions to one another. This special issue hopefully
theory moves away from being primarily qualitative serves as a trigger.
in nature (Berends & Deken, 2020; Pentland, 1999) to
include computed, numerical traces, the advanced
technology that is available in process mining and Acknowledgments
analysis should be the starting point for the develop-
This special issue would not have been possible without the
ment of further computational approaches to theory help and support of many. We thank the EJIS editorial team,
development (Grisold et al., 2020; Nambisan et al., especially Dov Te’eni, for providing us with the opportunity
2017). Collaboration among experts from both fields to launch the special issue. We received help from many
should be extremely productive. colleagues throughout multiple rounds of constructive and
Likewise, BPM research can no longer rely on analy- development reviewing. We thank (in no particular order)
Amy van Looy, Ashish Kumar Jha, Christoph Rosenkranz,
tical, formal and computational approaches alone. Frederik von Briel, Gustav Juell-Skielse, Hajo Reijers, Jan
Digital innovation comes alive as technology-in-use vom Brocke, Jonny Holmström, Kalle Lyytinen, Lucianna
during process performances (Swanson, 2019). To D’Adderio, Marlon Dumas, Marta Indulska, Maximilian
216 EDITORIAL

Röglinger, Nicholas Berente, Peter Trkman, Stefan Seidel, Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation,
Waldemar Kremser, Markus Becker, Peter Fettke, Kathrin exploration, and process management: The productivity
Figl, Aron Lindberg, Michael Rosemann, Remco Dijkman, dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28
Alfred Taudes, Federico Iannacci, Tyge Kummer, Damien (2), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040711
Joseph, Theresa Schmiedel, Mark Silver, Diane Strong, Arto Berends, H., & Deken, F. (2020). Composing qualitative
Lanamaeki, Jie Goh, Mary Lacity, Martin Bichler, Julian process research. Strategic Organization, 18(forthcom-
Lehmann, Claire Ingram Bogusz, and Jimmy Huang. ing). https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018824838
Finally, we thank Dov Te’eni, Michel Avital, Remko Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Data-driven
Helms, and Nicholas Berente for providing comments on computationally-intensive theory development.
an earlier draft of this editorial Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50–64. https://doi.
org/10.1287/isre.2018.0774
Beverungen, D., Müller, O., Matzner, M., Mendling, J., &
Disclosure statement Vom Brocke, J. (2019). Conceptualizing smart service
systems. Electronic Markets, 29(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. 10.1007/s12525-017-0270-5
Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of
innovation in project networks: The case of digital
ORCID 3-d representations in architecture, engineering, and
construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631–647.
Jan Mendling http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7260-524X
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0304
Brian T. Pentland http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7526-2476
Bose, R. P. J. C., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2009). Context
Jan Recker http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2072-5792
aware trace clustering: Towards improving process mining
results [Paper presented]. SIAM international conference
on data mining sparks, Nevada.
References
Bruno, G., Dengler, F., Jennings, B., Khalaf, R., Nurcan, S.,
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research Prilla, M., . . . Silva, R. (2011). Key challenges for enabling
questions through problematization. Academy of agile bpm with social software. Journal of Software
Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. https://doi.org/ Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 23
10.5465/amr.2009.0188 (4), 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.523
Arazy, O., Lindberg, A., Rezaei, M., & Samorani, M. (2020). Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine
The evolutionary trajectories of peer-produced artifacts: age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant
Group composition, the trajectories’ exploration, and the technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
quality of artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 44(forthcoming). Bygstad, B., & Øvrelid, E. (2020). Architectural alignment of
Retrieved from https://misq.org/skin/frontend/default/ process innovation and digital infrastructure in a
misq/pdf/Abstracts/15379_RA_ArazyLindbergAbstract. high-tech hospital. European Journal of Information
pdf Systems, 29(forthcoming). https://doi.org/10.1080/
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is 0960085X.2020.1728201
and how it evolves. Free Press. Casati, F. (1999). A discussion on approaches to handling
Avgerou, C. (2019). Contextual explanation: Alternative exceptions in workflows. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 20
approaches and persistent challenges. MIS Quarterly, 43 (3), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/605610.605611
(3), 977–1006. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/ Ciborra, C. (2000). From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate
13990 information infrastructures. Oxford University Press.
Avital, M., & Te’Eni, D. (2009). From generative fit to Cram, W. A., & Newell, S. (2016). Mindful revolution or mind-
generative capacity: Exploring an emerging dimension less trend? Examining agile development as a management
of information systems design and task performance. fashion. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(2),
Information Systems Journal, 19(4), 345–367. https://doi. 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2015.13
org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00291.x Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering
Baiyere, A., Salmela, H., & Tapanainen, T. (2020). Digital transfor- work through information technology. Harvard Business
mation and the new logics of business process management. School Press.
European Journal of Information Systems, 29(forthcoming). Dittrich, K., & Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in
https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1718007 routine dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of
Baskerville, R., Myers, M. D., & Yoo, Y. (2020). Digital first: Management Journal, 61(1), 111–138. https://doi.org/
The ontological reversal and new challenges for is 10.5465/amj.2015.0010
research. MIS Quarterly, 44(forthcoming). Retrieved Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design
from https://misq.org/skin/frontend/default/misq/pdf/ process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design
Abstracts/14418_IO_BaskervilleMyersAbstract.pdf Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-
Bass, L., Weber, I., & Zhu, L. (2015). Devops: A software 694X(01)00009-6
architect’s perspective. Pearson Education. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A.
Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C., & King, J. L. (2018). Governance (2018). Fundamentals of business process management
in the blockchain economy: A framework and research (2nd ed.). Springer.
agenda. Journal of the Association for Information Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology.
Systems, 19(10), 1020–1034. https://doi.org/10.17705/ American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317. https://
1jais.00518 doi.org/10.1086/231209
Benbunan-Fich, R. (2019). An affordance lens for wearable Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing
information systems. European Journal of Information organizational routines as a source of flexibility and
Systems, 28(3), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/ change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.
0960085X.2018.1512945 https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 217

Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L., & Lazaric, N. International conference on business process management,
(2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, Indulska, M., Green, P., Recker, J., & Rosemann, M. (2009).
27(3), 505–513. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1070 Business process modeling: Perceived benefits. In
Fichman, R. G., Dos Santos, B. L., & Zheng, Z. (2014). S. Castano, U. Dayal, & A. H. F. Laender (Eds.),
Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful con- Conceptual modeling - er 2009 (pp. 458–471). Springer.
cept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Indulska, M., Recker, J., Rosemann, M., & Green, P. (2009).
Quarterly, 38(2), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.25300/ Process modeling: Current issues and future challenges.
MISQ/2014/38.2.01 In P. van Eck, J. Gordijn, & R. Wieringa (Eds.), Advanced
Floridi, L. (2012). The road to the philosophy of informa- information systems engineering - caise 2009 (Vol. 5565,
tion. In H. Demir (Ed.), Luciano floridi’s philosophy of pp. 501–514). Springer.
technology (pp. 245–271). Springer. Jans, M., van der Werf, J. M., Lybaert, N., & Vanhoof, K.
Freelon, D. (2014). On the interpretation of digital trace data (2011). A business process mining application for inter-
in communication and social computing research. nal transaction fraud mitigation. Expert Systems with
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(1), Applications, 38(10), 13351–13359. https://doi.org/
59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.875018 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.159
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Karnøe, P. (2010). Path Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The
dependence or path creation? Journal of Management ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. MIS Quarterly,
Studies, 47(4), 760–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 37(2), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/
6486.2009.00914.x 37.2.02
Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014). Kohlborn, T., Müller, O., Poeppelbuss, J., & Röglinger, M.
Toward generalizable sociomaterial inquiry: (2014). Interview with michael rosemann on ambidex-
A computational approach for zooming in and out of trous business process management. Business Process
sociomaterial routines. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 849–871. Management Journal, 20(4), 634–638. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.3.10 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2014-0012
Gerlach, J. P., & Centefelli, R. T. (2020). Constant checking Kyriakou, H., Nickerson, J. V., & Sabnis, G. (2017).
is not addiction: A grounded theory of it-mediated Knowledge reuse for customization: Metamodels in an
state-tracking. MIS Quarterly, (forthcoming). Retrieved open design community for 3d printing. MIS Quarterly,
from https://misq.org/skin/frontend/default/misq/pdf/ 41(1), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/
Abstracts/15865_RA_GerlachCenfetelliAbstract.pdf 41.1.17a
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the Lacity, M., & Wilcocks, L. (2017). A new approach to auto-
theory of structuration. University of California Press. mating services. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(1),
Goh, K. T., & Pentland, B. T. (2019). From actions to paths 41–49. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11633.003.0015
to patterning: Toward a dynamic theory of patterning in Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2017). The sage hand-
routines. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), book of process organization studies. Sage.
1901–1929. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0042 Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible
Grisold, T., Wurm, B., Mendling, J., & Vom Brocke, J. technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication
(2020). Using process mining to support theorizing about of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1),
change in organizations [Paper presented]. 53rd Hawaii 147–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493
international conference on system sciences, Maui, Hawaii. Leymann, F., & Roller, D. (2000). Production workflow:
Günther, C., Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M., Van der Concepts and techniques. Prentice Hall.
Aalst, W. M. P., & Recker, J. (2008). Using process mining Lyytinen, K., & Damsgaard, J. (2011). Inter-organizational
to learn from process changes in evolutionary systems. information systems adoption - a configuration analysis
International Journal of Business Process Integration and approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 20
Management, 3(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1504/ (5), 496–509. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.71
IJBPIM.2008.019348 Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2016). Effect of
Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don’t automate, knowledge-sharing trajectories on innovative outcomes
obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 104–112. in temporary online crowds. Information Systems
Retrived from https://hbr.org/1990/07/reengineering- Research, 27(4), 685–703. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.
work-dont-automate-obliterate 2016.0669
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the cor- Marchant, C., & O’Donohoe, S. (2019). Homo prostheticus?
poration: A manifesto for business revolution. Intercorporeality and the emerging adult-smartphone
Harpercollins. assemblage. Information Technology & People, 32(3),
Hargadon, A. B. (2006). Bridging old worlds and building 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-07-2017-0209
new ones: Toward a microsociology of creativity. In Mendling, J., Decker, G., Hull, R., Reijers, H. A., & Weber, I.
L. L. Thompson & H.-S. Choi (Eds.), Creativity and (2018a). How do machine learning, robotic process auto-
innovation in organizational teams (pp. 199–216). mation, and blockchains affect the human factor in busi-
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ness process management? Communications of the
Hernes, T. (2017). Process as the becoming of temporal tra- Association for Information Systems, 43(19), 297–320.
jectory. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The sage hand- https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04319
book of process organization studies (pp. 601–606). Sage. Mendling, J., Weber, I., Van der Aalst, W. M. P., Vom
Hirschheim, R. (1986). Office automation: A social and Brocke, J., Cabanillas, C., Daniel, F., . . . Zhu, L. (2018b).
organizational perspective. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Blockchains for business process management - chal-
Hull, R., & Motahari-Nezhad, H. R. (2016). Rethinking bpm lenges and opportunities. ACM Transactions on
in a cognitive world: Transforming how we learn and per- Management Information Systems, 9(1), Article 4.
form business processes [Paper presented]. 14th https://doi.org/10.1145/3183367
218 EDITORIAL

Mertens, W., Recker, J., Kohlborn, T., & Kummer, T.-F. Rosemann, M., Recker, J., & Flender, C. (2008).
(2016). A framework for the study of positive deviance Contextualization of business processes. International
in organizations. Deviant Behavior, 37(11), 1288–1307. Journal of Business Process Integration and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1174519 3(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPIM.2008.019347
Mikalef, P., & Krogstie, J. (2020). Examining the interplay Satyal, S., Weber, I., Paik, H.-Y., Di Ciccio, C., &
between big data analytics and contextual factors in driv- Mendling, J. (2019). Business process improvement with
ing process innovation capabilities. European Journal of the ab-bpm methodology. Information Systems, 84,
Information Systems, 29(forthcoming). https://doi.org/10. 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2018.06.007
1080/0960085X.2020.1740618 Schmiedel, T., & Vom Brocke, J. (2015). Business process
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. management: Potentials and challenges of driving inno-
(2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing vation. In J. Vom Brocke & T. Schmiedel (Eds.), Bpm -
innovation management research in a digital world. MIS driving innovation in a digital world (pp. 3–15). Springer.
Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.25300/ Schroeder, R. G., Lindermann, K., Liedtke, C., & Choo, A. S.
MISQ/2017/41:1.03 (2008). Six sigma: Definition and underlying theory.
Nguyen, H., Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Maggi, F. M., & Journal of Operations Management, 26(4), 536–554.
Suriadi, S. (2014). Mining business process deviance: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.06.007
A quest for accuracy. In R. Meersman, H. Panetto, Schulte, S., Janiesch, C., Venugopal, S., Weber, I., &
T. S. Dillon, M. Missikoff, L. Liu, O. Pastor, Hoenisch, P. (2015). Elastic business process manage-
A. Cuzzocrea, & T. Sellis (Eds.), On the move to mean- ment: State of the art and open challenges for bpm in
ingful internet systems: Otm 2014 (Vol. 8841, pp. the cloud. Future Generation Computer Systems, 46,
436–445). Springer. 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2014.09.005
OMG. (2016). Case model management and notation Silver, B. (2009). Bpmn method and style: A levels-based
(cmmn) specification version 1.1. Object Management methodology for bpm process modeling and improvement
Group. Retrieved March 6, 2020, from https://www. using bpmn 2.0. Cody-Cassidy Press.
omg.org/spec/CMMN/1.1/ Smith, H., & Fingar, P. (2003). Business process management
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring - the third wave. Meghan-Kiffer Press.
technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), Swanson, E. B. (2019). Technology as routine capability.
1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138 MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 1007–1024. https://doi.org/10.
Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building process theory with narra- 25300/MISQ/2019/14653
tive: From description to explanation. Academy of Swenson, K. D. (2012). Social bpm: Work, planning and
Management Review, 24(4), 711–725. https://doi.org/10. collaboration under the impact of social technology.
2307/259350 Future Strategies Inc.
Pentland, B. T., Liu, P., Kremser, W., & Hærem, T. (2020a). Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Digital
The dynamics of drift in digitized processes. MIS infrastructures: The missing is research agenda.
Quarterly, 44(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/ Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748–759. https://
2020/14458 doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0318
Pentland, B. T., Recker, J., Ryan Wolf, J., & Wyner, G. Tiwana, A. (2015). Evolutionary competition in platform
(2020b). Bringing context inside process research with ecosystems. Information Systems Research, 26(2),
digital trace data. Journal of the Association for 266–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0573
Information Systems, 21(forthcoming). Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. R., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Platform
Pickering, A. (2010). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, govern-
and science. University of Chicago Press. ance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems
Poll, R., Polyvyanyy, A., Rosemann, M., Röglinger, M., & Research, 21(4), 675–687. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.
Rupprecht, L. (2018). Process forecasting: Towards proac- 1100.0323
tive business process management [Paper presented]. 16th Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becom-
International conference on business process management, ing: Rethinking organizational change. Organization
Sydney, Australia. Science, 13(5), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.
Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as compe- 5.567.7810
titive advantage: A review and empirical study. Strategic van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2005). Business alignment: Using
Management Journal, 16(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10. process mining as a tool for delta analysis and confor-
1002/smj.4250160105 mance testing. Requirements Engineering, 10(3), 198–211.
Puranam, P., Alexy, O., & Reitzig, M. (2014). What’s “new” https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-005-0001-x
about new forms of organizing? Academy of Management van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2011). Process mining: Discovery,
Review, 39(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr. conformance and enhancement of business processes.
2011.0436 Springer.
Reichert, M., & Dadam, P. (1998). Adeptflex – Supporting van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2013). Business process manage-
dynamic changes of workflows without loosing control. ment: A comprehensive survey. ISRN Software
Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 10(2), 93–129. Engineering, 2013, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008604709862 507984
Rieger, A., Guggenmos, F., Locki, J., Fridgen, G., & van der Aalst, W. M. P., Weijters, A. J. M. M., & Maruster, L.
Urbach, N. (2019). Building a blockchain application (2004). Workflow mining: Discovering process models
that complies with the eu general data protection from event logs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and
regulation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 18(4), 263–279. Data Engineering, 16(9), 1128–1142. https://doi.org/10.
https://doi.org/10.17705/2msqe.00020 1109/TKDE.2004.47
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How constant innovation van der Aalst, W. M. P., & Weske, M. (2005). Case handling:
creates radically successful businesses. Crown Business. A new paradigm for business process support. Data &
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 219

Knowledge Engineering, 53(2), 129–162. https://doi.org/ Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers
10.1016/j.datak.2004.07.003 and cognition: A new foundation for design. Ablex
Vom Brocke, J., & Mendling, J. (Eds.). (2018). Business Publication Corporation.
process management cases: Digital innovation and busi- Winter, S., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Butler, B. S. (2014).
ness transformation in practice. Springer. Beyond the organizational ‘container’: Conceptualizing
Vom Brocke, J., & Rosemann, M. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook 21st century sociotechnical work. Information and
on business process management 1: Introduction, methods Organization, 24(4), 250–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and information systems (2nd ed.). Springer. infoandorg.2014.10.003
Vom Brocke, J., Schmiedel, T., Recker, J., Trkman, P., Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in everyday life: A call for
Mertens, W., & Viaene, S. (2014). Ten principles of research on experiential computing. MIS Quarterly, 34
good business process management. Business Process (2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721425
Management Journal, 20(4), 530–548. https://doi.org/10. Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012).
1108/BPMJ-06-2013-0074 Organizing for innovation in the digitized world.
von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2016). Identifying viable Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408. https://doi.org/
“need–solution pairs”: Problemsolving without problem 10.1287/orsc.1120.0771
formulation. Organization Science, 27(1), 207–221. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1023 organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for
Werder, K., Seidel, S., Recker, J., Berente, N., Kundert-Gibbs, J., information systems research. Information Systems
Abboud, N., & Benzeghadi, Y. (2020). Data-driven, data- Research, 21(4), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.
informed, data-augmented: How ubisoft’s ghost recon wild- 1100.0322
lands live unit uses data for continuous product innovation. Zhang, H. (2016). Planet of the things. Computer Fraud &
California Management Review, 63(3), forthcoming. https:// Security, 2016(3), 16–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-
doi.org/10.1177/0008125620915290 3723(16)30027-6